RELEASE OF THE APRIL 2022 TRANCHE OF THE PFIZER PAPERS AND WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED.
The release of a further 11,000 pages of the Pfizer documents took place on 1st April 2022. The papers have been studied over the course of this month by interested scientists, doctors and expert groups including a team from the Children’s Health Defense. The released papers have been analysed in the Daily Expose online, by Dr Naomi Wolf on her online platform, by Kim Iverson in Australia, and by many others, medical experts and scientists.
What has been revealed most tellingly relates to:
1. The taking on of increased levels of staff to manage the steadily growing volume of adverse events reported to Pfizer in the first review period post EUA, from 1st December 2020 to the 28th February 2021.
2. The number of vaccine doses in question, shipped out worldwide in the first review period, relative to the adverse events reported.
3. The incidence of Myocarditis obscured in the data and paperwork effectively.
4. The incidence of ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) in the trial participants and the very questionable way in which the evidence of ADE and VAED adverse effects in the trials were dismissed by Pfizer, and unquestioned by the FDA.
5. Pfizer knew that there was a transient period of immunosuppression in the seven day period after vaccination.
6. The incidence of adverse injuries in people under 55 years who took the vaccines were measurably more severe in the Pfizer study, as revealed in the released documents.
7. Confirmed in the Pfizer trials, natural immunity following a covid-19 infection works.
THE taking on of additional staff to manage the volume of adverse events reports.
Pfizer reports a decision to take on an additional 2,400 staff over the period from February to June 2021 in light of the sheer and growing volume of adverse events reports coming in from December 2020 to February 202. The implications of this, of the unprecedented volume of vaccine injuries reported as the roll-out continued, were not revealed to the public. Not by Pfizer, not by the FDA and not by our own regulatory bodies. Eudravigelance, the MHRA in the UK, our own HPRA, must have and should have been aware, or have made themselves aware, of the emerging data from Pfizer during the first three months of the roll-out, which Pfizer was obliged to collect and submit.
It is extremely telling that the actual number of additional staff being taken on was redacted when these papers were released earlier, for no legitimate reason. The document ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorisation Adverse Event Reports’ was previously released in November 2020 partially redacted. The only reasonable explanation as to why this figure of 2,400 additional staff was not revealed in the earlier version must lie in what it reveals. The adverse events being reported back after the first three months of the roll-out were much higher than planned for, unprecedented in fact. Members of the public presenting for vaccination meanwhile took their shots without being made aware of the volume of adverse injuries already reported, which this level of increased staffing clearly indicates.
THE number of doses involved overall in the period of 1st December 2020 to 28th February 2021.
—————————————————–
Again the actual number of the vaccine doses in question was redacted in the earlier release of the papers. This was referred to in previous analyses by the various experts assessing the released data. It was difficult to establish with any clarity what the exact rate of adverse injuries was, per doses given, in the absence of this figure. There was likewise no legitimate rationale for the redaction. The unredacted papers in the April tranche reveal a figure of 126,212,580 doses shipped worldwide from the 1st December 2020 to the 28th February 2021. This would indicate that reported adverse events following vaccination were occurring at a rate of 1 per 800 vaccinated. Highly significant. Any difference in doses shipped as opposed to doses actually administered can only increase the figure for the incidence of adverse effects. The public were not made aware of this figure. The FDA were aware of the rate of injury. Eudravigilance in the EU, the MHRA for the UK and the HPRA in Ireland either were aware or should have been aware of the rate of vaccine injuries reported by the public to Pfizer, as revealed in the first post authorisation study.
THE incidence of myocarditis acknowledged in the Pfizer papers.
The documentation released includes a paediatric consent form relating to Pfizer trials in children, dated November 2021, which lists several potential side effects from the vaccine, including heart damage in the form of myocarditis at a rate of 10 per 100,000. This is far greater than the 1 in 50,000 ( 2 in 100,00) previously reported. It is very clear from what has emerged post vaccination that the incidence of myocarditis is greatly increased in young males, and it follows that the risk to them must be distinctly greater than 10 in 100,000.
This consent form also specifies that the effects of the vaccine on sperm, fetuses and nursing children are unknown. Simple as that. Unknown. All the claims made that the vaccine is safe and effective for pregnant women, all the reassurances given, are without any basis or validity if the outcomes are unknown. Anyone, including our own doctors, our medical health officials, lie when they make this assertion. Anyone taking the vaccine having signed this consent form is deemed to have accepted the risks of adverse injuries as listed.
THE incidence of ADE in trial subjects as revealed in the Pfizer papers
………………………………………..
Vaccine associated enhanced disease (VAED) is listed as an ‘Important potential risk’ at Table 5 of page 11 in the document ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorisation Adverse Events Reports’, included in the released documents.
As of February 28th 2021, Pfizer had 138 cases of suspected VAED, 75 of which were severe, resulting in hospitalisation, disability and life threatening consequences or death. A total of 38 cases turned out to be fatal and 65 remained unresolved.
Phase 3 clinical trials are designed to uncover frequent or severe side effects, before a vaccine is approved for use, and of course phase three clinical trials here are ongoing, not due to be completed until February 2024. Pfizer have nonetheless concluded in its FDA presentation, as evidenced in the released documents, that ‘None of the 75 severe cases of covid-19 infections leading to hospitalisation occurring after vaccination could be definitively considered as VAED’. (Table 5) Although acknowledging that the risk of VAED remained unknown.
The Expose, in an article dated 28th April 2022, concluded that both Pfizer and the FDA knew VAED was a possible consequence of the mRNA vaccines They had received evidence of it occurring including several deaths and swept this under the carpet, claiming ‘no new safety issues had been raised’, again referring to Table 5, para 5.3.6 in its Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorisation Adverse Event Reports. As outlined in our previous paragraph, VAED is acknowledged to be an unknown risk, but the incidence of 75 severe cases is described here as undefinable.
AND following on from this:
The Daily Expose, in the same article, goes on to look at the evidence of VAEDS, and outcomes for vaccinated people over time, as revealed by the UKHSA (The UK Health Security Agency) weekly Covid-19 Vaccine Surveillance report. This official UK report contains data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status. Over the period of the 28th February 2022 to the 27th March 2022 the rates of infection, hospitalisations and deaths are increasingly higher in the double vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated population per hundred thousand. The figures for the triple vaccinated, in contrast to the unvaccinated, are higher again. The article makes for interesting reading. The case covid-19 infection rate is significantly higher among the double vaccinated in all age groups. The higher rate in hospitalisations and deaths are increasingly shown in the older vaccinated age groups. In essence the figures show that all double vaccinated people over the age of 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of covid-19, with a minus 90% vaccine effectiveness among 30-39 year olds, and a minus 156% vaccine effectiveness rate among the over 80s.
The article concludes that the only reasonable answer to the question as to why the UK official figures reveal this clear picture of increased sickness and death in the double and triple vaccinated point squarely to ADE, Antibody Dependant Enhancement. This was yet another predicted outcome raised by the many censured medical experts since the roll out of the covid-19 vaccines. Called the ‘Trojan Horse Pathway’ effect, the antibodies produced by the vaccines act as a gateway allowing infection to enter and replicate in cells that are normally protected by immune cells, like macrophages. Leading to a wider dissemination of disease, and an over-reactive immune response resulting in more severe illness.
We are in stage three trials and this is what the trials have revealed to date. The ADE and VAED phenomenon now emerging was flagged, evident as a risk in the Pfizer vaccine trials and in the Pfizer papers.
IMMEDIATE immunosuppression in vaccinated people over a seven day period.
The documents reveal that Pfizer reported on and was aware of the fact that people of all ages experienced immunosuppression, a temporary weakening of the immune system, in the first week after vaccination. The trial data shows that infection was significantly more likely in the vaccine group than in the placebo group within the first seven days of the jab. This is significant in the context of our various health systems counting infections in vaccinated people, occurring in this timeframe, as infections in the unvaccinated.
Greater severity of adverse effects in vaccinated people under 55 years old.
A major revelation in the released documents, relating to the trial data, is that side effects from the shots were more severe in younger people, aged 18 to 55, that those aged 55 and older. And the risk increases with the second dose. It is generally accepted that the occurrence of covid-19 infections are dramatically lower in younger people, which begs the question as to reason for the coercive drive to have younger people vaccinated, where there was in fact an elevated risk of side effects known to the FDA and to Pfizer and which should have been known by all our regulatory bodies, Eudravigilance et al.
NATURAL immunity following covid-19 infection works.
Also of major significance in the released data is the acknowledgment that natural immunity works. The clinical trial data showed that there was no difference in outcomes between those recovered from previous covid-19 infections in the placebo groups and those who received the vaccine. This is not what the public were told. Pfizer knew, the FDA knew, the public were told something else entirely.
The next document dump takes place today or early this week. It is now quite clear that it will take many days and weeks to analyse what will be revealed. We can only expect that each of these releases will reveal more previously withheld and essential information about the covid-19 vaccines, including what Pfizer and the various regulatory bodies knew or ought to have known about the risks to the public, participating effectively in phase 3 trials of an EUA approved vaccine drive. Following on from this it can be anticipated that information yet to be revealed will contain more and increasing bombshells. In the meanwhile, and referring to our draft letter to the various regulatory bodies in our previous post on the documents release of the 15th March 2022, our readers may wish to forward follow-up letters to the same bodies as follows:
With reference to the documents released as per court order by Pfizer on the 1st April 2022 can you clarify as follows:
Why was the public not made aware that the volume of adverse events being reported to Pfizer between 1st December 2020 to 28th February 2021 were such that an increase of staff in the order of 2,400 new employees was decided on in February 2021 for the period up to June 2021 by Pfizer? Was this information not required as an essential component of informed consent?
Why were the public not informed of the evidence of VAED in the Pfizer studies as evidenced in the released papers? Why were the public not informed that the future risks of VAED were unknown?
Why were the public not informed of the increased severity of adverse events in people under 55, as found in the Pfizer studies?
Why were the public not generally informed of the level of risk of myocarditis, as specified in the paediatric form included in the Pfizer documents release? Why were the public not made aware of the fact that risks to sperm, to nursing children, to fetuses, were in fact unknown, as further specified in this consent form. Why were pregnant women in particular assured that the vaccines were safe and effective despite the fact that these risks were unknown?
Why was the public not advised that natural immunity following covid-19 infection was equal to the protection provided by the Pfizer covid-19 vaccines, as revealed in the Pfizer papers released, and why were the public advised to have the vaccination regardless?
It is enormously useful to ask these questions, whatever response is given. The answers are obvious in most cases and our regulatory bodies need to know that we aware, awake, and that there will be enquiries, a reckoning, in the future. Particularly in the context of the ongoing covid-19 vaccination campaign despite risks revealed.
Pm us if you have an questions.
Lawyers For Justice 